December 16, 2011

As promised, I have taken the IBS sample from the latest available 1000 Genomes data and split it into sub-populations. There are at present 147 IBS individuals, and 108 of them have regional information about them:

Canarias_1KG 2

Galicia_1KG 8

Aragon_1KG 6

Valencia_1KG 12

Andalucia_1KG 4

Murcia_1KG 8

Baleares_1KG 7

Cataluna_1KG 9

Pais_Vasco_1KG 8

Cantabria_1KG 6

Extremadura_1KG 8

Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG 6

Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG 12

I estimated the admixture proportions of these individuals in terms of the K12a calculator. I do not report averages at this time, as I will repeat the analysis that created K12a, but using new reference individuals from the 1000 Genomes project. Nonetheless, the following figure of the ADMIXTURE analysis gives a visual taste of the makeup of the different populations:

The one population that stands out in this set is that of the Basque Country (Pais_Vasco_1KG) which appears, like the HGDP French_Basque population to differ from its neighbors in having near zero of the "Caucasus" component.

I first speculated that some of the IBS sample were of Basque origin during the summer, and it seems that this was indeed the case.

The paucity of the "Caucasus" component in Dodecad, HGDP, and now 1000 Genomes Basques, together with the paucity of the "Caucasus"/"Gedrosia" components in Finns compared to northern Balto-Slavs and Scandinavians respectively is very suggestive, since these are the two major non-Indo-European speaking populations of Europe. (*)

In my opinion, these comparisons add weight to the growing body of evidence that the PIE Urheimat is to be sought in the territory of West Asia, as asecondarymovement, about 8,000 years, ago of the broader series of expansions that began from this area 12,000 years ago.

(*) Hungarians are also non-Indo-European, but they seem to have received their language in historical times through a process of elite dominance.

50 comments:

Basques non-indoeuropean and with no caucasus component. Good point, but what about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleohispanic_languages

All the mediterranean coast was non-indoeuropean two millennia ago. Actually, there are no significant genetic differences between peoples like the Galicians( ancient celtic language) and Catalonians( ancient non-indoueuropean iberic). How do you conciliate it?

>> Actually, there are no significant genetic differences between peoples like the Galicians( ancient celtic language) and Catalonians( ancient non-indoueuropean iberic). How do you conciliate it?

I am not sure what you mean. They speak an Indo-European language in both Catalonia and Galicia.

Iberia seems to have been Indo-Europeanized fairly late, by Celts (Celtiberians) and then by Romans. If I had to guess, I would say that the pre-Indo-European population was mostly "Mediterranean"-like in terms of the K12a.

There are only 2 Canarian individuals in the part of the IBS dataset that has regional information. They are distinguished with their elevated "East African" and "Northwest African" components.

The one population that stands out in this set is that of the Basque Country (Pais_Vasco_1KG) which appears, like the HGDP French_Basque population to differ from its neighbors in having near zero of the "Caucasus" component.

Other distinctive features of Basques are that they have almost no "East African" component, very reduced "Southwest Asian" component and higher "Mediterranean" and "Gedrosia" components. Basques are claerly genetically distinct from the rest of the dataset. It seems that the genetic boundary between Basques and their non-Basque neighbors is clear-cut.

I first speculated that some of the IBS sample were of Basque origin during the summer, and it seems that this was indeed the case.

It seems all the samples of the IBS dataset that look like the HGDP French Basques are ethnic Basques. So Iberian Basques and French Basques seem to be genetically indistinguishable from each other and easily distinguished from their non-Basque neighbors (whether from Spain or France).

About 2/3 of Iberia was Celtic speakers, when the East was a pre-IE speaking area, yet the genetic differences betweem the two areas are minimal. Actually the indo-europeanization of Iberia has been much earlier than other parts of Western Europe, that's why you see arhcaich proto-Celtic languages like Lusitanian and Tartessian.

We don't know if there are only 2 canarians, since we only know 108 out of the 147 IBS.

As for the clear-cut of basques, I don't think it's the case. There is a continuum, we need more samples from nearbound areas, I know people without a single basque surname in their family, and they pull towards basques in PCA plots, from areas like northern-aragon, Navarre, Rioja, etc.

"In my opinion, these comparisons add weight to the growing body of evidence that the PIE Urheimat is to be sought in the territory of West Asia, as a secondary movement, about 8,000 years, ago of the broader series of expansions that began from this area 12,000 years ago."

It would be interesting if D could draw up a summary of the various data suggestive of a West Asian PIE Urheimat. Such a post could be occasionally updated.

Is there any archeology to support this timeline? Is IE language dominance associated with any other cultural dominance? Why would IE consistently replace other languages? If IE language expansion is associated with the expansion of the "caucasus" component, then does this component allude to a people that formed a political and culture elite that socially dominated other groupsover millennia? Were the expanding IE a "herrenvolk" or an aristocracy that ruled over pre-IE like the Germanic tribes ruled much of western Europe in the Middle Ages or the Ottomans ruled IE/ ex-IE Byzantines?

It also raises the question of whether any haplos are associated with the caucasus component. Are any haplos missing from the non-IE groups in question?

The short answer is 8.2 kiloyear climate event + the spread of the Pottery Neolithic, with later movements associated with the secondary products, metalworking, and transportation.

Archaeologists have to rework their theories no matter what the right answer turns out to be. Because none of their theories really harmonize with the ancient DNA evidence that suggests a much more dynamic view of prehistory than most archaeologists in the post-skulls/pots era were ever comfortable with.

We don't know if there are only 2 canarians, since we only know 108 out of the 147 IBS.

108/147, that is most of the dataset. If we go by statistics, at most 1 individual from the rest of the database should be Canaraian.

As for the clear-cut of basques, I don't think it's the case. There is a continuum, we need more samples from nearbound areas, I know people without a single basque surname in their family, and they pull towards basques in PCA plots, from areas like northern-aragon, Navarre, Rioja, etc.

Well, there are 6 known Aragonese in the IBS dataset, and their average is typical of non-Basque Iberians and, apparently like all the other non-Basque samples, does not look like the Basque samples.

"the PIE Urheimat is to be sought in the territory of West Asia, as a secondary movement, about 8,000 years ago"

I remain of the opinion that genetics as such cannot yet answer such questions, which are basically linguistic and cultural. It is an interesting accompanying discipline, frequently insightful, but that's all. Nations may perhaps be (partly) described by their genetic structure, but that is not what makes them what they are. I know of no existing genetic argument which can effectively dispose of the currently dominant Pontic-Caspian IE urheimat position. There are dissenting voices of course, and specific problems not yet sufficiently resolved. But the voices are marginal, and the problems not severe enough to be decisive. Anything is possible in science, but until that "anything" happens, the West Asian theory is just not decently competitive. For all my great admiration as to Deinekes' accomplishments in genetic analysis.

I remain of the opinion that linguistics as such cannot yet answer such questions, which are basic. It is an interesting accompanying discipline, frequently insightful, but that's all. Nations may perhaps be (partly) described by their linguistic structure, but that is not what makes them what they are. I know of no existing linguistic argument which can effectively dispose of the currently dominant genetic IE urheimat position.

There's old Indo-European onomasty in the Basque country as well as in other parts of Iberia. Some of those names don't seem to be either of Celtic, Latin or Lusitanian. Francisco Villar, a Spanish scholar, has said that most Basque names found in classical sources are of Indo-European origin. The Basque language, by contrast, only began to be noticed more modern times. I don't think the Basques are a remnant European people that managed to escape Indo-European influence, cultural or genetic. Their weird frequencies for certain alleles suggest, in my opinion, that their distinctiveness from Iberians and southern Frenchmen is due to genetic drift.

"I remain of the opinion that linguistics as such cannot yet answer such questions, which are basic. It is an interesting accompanying discipline, frequently insightful, but that's all. Nations may perhaps be (partly) described by their linguistic structure, but that is not what makes them what they are. I know of no existing linguistic argument which can effectively dispose of the currently dominant genetic IE urheimat position."

Eurologist, all evidence combined suggests that 1) agriculture spread from West Asia to Europe; 2) later nomadic Indo-Europeans entered Europe from the Pontic steppe. Some of them went down to Anatolia to become Hittites, etc. In this particular case, neither linguistics, nor genetics gives a complete picture.

On a general note, linguistics is a better indicator of population affinities than genetics. We're only now discovering the genetic distinctiveness of the Basques, while linguistics captured it many years ago.

I remember reading that the south of the Pyrenee basques are a recent population, that in roman time they lived mostly in what is now Aquitaine. The names of the tribes that populated what is now Euskadi and Navarre as reported by romans seem either celtics or other pre-IE.

I am very excited to hear the Canarians have finally been included in someone's research and look forward to a future tool including the Canarians. Many Latin Americans descend from Canariotes and would benefit from this.

Dienekes:"the PIE Urheimat is to be sought in the territory of West Asia, as a secondary movement, about 8,000 years ago"

I agree with Dmytro. There is no scientific way how genetics could disprove a theory based on linguistic results – it is methodologically impossible. Even if there were an early migration from West Asia to Europe, it may not have anything to do with the spread of Indo-European language. Because of the wagon vocabulary, Proto-Indo-European could not have spread before the 4th millennium BC – nothing in genes cannot change or disprove this result.

Eurologist:“I know of no existing linguistic argument which can effectively dispose of the currently dominant genetic IE urheimat position.”

How can you know that they were IE? Even if genes from that “genetic homeland” are now common in the IE speakers, it is not enough to prove that Proto-Indo-European was spoken among that genetic stock. Those genes may be IE only at the present level, not at the ancient, past level.

I agree with Dmytro.There is no scientific way how genetics could disprove a theory based on linguistic results – it is methodologically impossible. Even if there were an early migration from West Asia to Europe, it may not have anything to do with the spread of Indo-European language. Because of the wagon vocabulary, Proto-Indo-European could not have spread before the 4th millennium BC – nothing in genes cannot change or disprove this result.Count me as another supporter.

Where conclusions from linguistics seem to be at odds with the genetic message, that is likely to mean that the speakers of a given language today do not closely resemble the earliest speakers of that language or its ancestor. Dienekes gave a good example: Hungarian.

I strongly suspect that the speakers of IE languages today everywhere are a genetic amalgam. The core who developed PIE on the steppe (think Y-DNA R1a) absorbed farming neighbours presumably from West Asia (think R1b) Then as this amalgam spread east and west it absorbed previous farming peoples.

I agree with a previous post by Dienekes that the "Caucasus" element he is finding does not imply that people spread from the Caucasus, but that the Caucasus preserved a genetic pool from the earliest farmers. We might think of the Y-DNA equivalent as G2a (together with subclades of E and J). This element not predominant today among IE speakers, but spread widely.

The finding of East Eurasian mtDNA in the Ukraine and Hungary doesn't bode well for that region being a substantial source of population movements. It looks more like a region that had its population replaced.

PIE does not have a word for wagon.In fact PIE does have a word for wagon. You may be thinking of the Anatolian branch, which had IE-derived words for thill and axle, but not for wheel or vehicle. Linguists deduce that a group moved away from the IE motherland before the invention of the wheel and settled eventually in Anatolia. The Anatolian branch is clearly derived from PIE and not its precursor.

The finding of East Eurasian mtDNA in the Ukraine and Hungary doesn't bode well for that region being a substantial source of population movements. It looks more like a region that had its population replaced.

Indeed it has had its popular replaced several times. Which is why ancient DNA is crucial. Modern populations there do not provide a good guide to who was there in 4000 BC.

The Anatolian branch is the one that diverged first, hence it defines the oldest split in the language tree.

Although splits are probably not a good way to describe early IE languages, and there was probably a dialect continuum that persisted for a while prior to the final breakup of Indo-European languages into unintelligible forms.

Although splits are probably not a good way to describe early IE languages, and there was probably a dialect continuum that persisted for a while prior to the final breakup of Indo-European languages .

There is no rule about how a mother language breaks up. It depends entirely on the behaviour of its speakers. In some cases it might not break up at all. Where the language community remains together in regular communication, it will simply develop.

In some cases there will be splits, as a group breaks away to form a fresh community some distance away.

In other cases there will be a gradual spread outwards, maintaining communication, until the outer groups which have rare contact with the centre develop their own dialects. That is the dialect continuum. As groups wander further away from that continuum, their dialects develop into languages.

In the case of IE, linguists can discern which languages are the result of splits, such as the Anatolian, Tochatrian and Celtic branches and which remained in a dialect continuum, such as Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-Iranian.

This is great! Thank you. Its interesting to see that, for the most part, Spaniards are genetically similar to each other, what seems to fluctuate the most is the NW African component amongst Spaniards, with Canarians having the most, as expected. It seems the further north east, the lower the NW African component, with the Basque having almost none at all.

@ Truth I have used Dienekes statistical tools to analyze different cousins of Canarian descent (including my grandmother), Both Tuscan (Genovese) and Portuguese (Sephardic) show in all of their top five tribes. So I would agree with you that they are not strictly Iberian.

Cutting and pasting some of the individual euro strips and laying them out in various orders.

1) Northern shore of the med going west to east:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/medwesttoeast.png/

2) Danubian going west to east:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/danubianwesttoeast.png/

3) Atlantic coast, north to south:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/atlanticnorthtosouth.png/

4) North to south, central and east

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/528/northtosouth.png/

I think they illustrate:1) The "med" component is both western and southern.2) The "caucasus" component is either southern and eastern declining both to the west and north *or* heavily south-eastern with a secondary smaller north-eastern element.3) The "gedrosia" component seems highest on the western and northern periphery, the furthest away from the Greece / Thessaly / Kurgan? expansion points.

###

Jaska"Because of the wagon vocabulary, Proto-Indo-European could not have spread before the 4th millennium BC – nothing in genes cannot change or disprove this result."

or

Dienekes"The Anatolian branch is the one that diverged first, hence it defines the oldest split in the language tree."

I certainly couldn't judge on this but is it possible we could be looking at two sets of indo-europeans - earlier wave on foot (or more often boat) and the more famous one later on horses?

At this point all of the above are represented by the "Caucasus" component.

3)Greece branch- along med coast to ItalyDanubian branch- further up DanubeCaucasus branch- branch steppe foot pastoralists-- some move east Tocharians?-- some stay, mix with NE component and become Kurgan?

In other words, three separate branches of indo-european: coastal, danubian and steppe?

"If IE language expansion is associated with the expansion of the "caucasus" component...Were the expanding IE a "herrenvolk" or an aristocracy that ruled over pre-IE"

In the context of early farmers (IE or otherwise) moving into terriotory inhabited by hunter-gatherers i don't think either of those two models are neccessy or the most likely for the simple reason early farmers couldn't farm everywhere.

I think it's easier to imagine the farmers moving along rivers or coasts hopping from one good farming site to the next until they reached a climatic limit for their current package.

###

So the first stage in any farming advance might be - depending largely on the ease of water travel imo - a fairly rapid hop of farmers from one suitable location to the next ignoring the majority of unsuitable terrain in between. This might then be followed by a second stage where (semi-nomadic?) pastoral farming spreads out into the terriotory around the edges of the farming zones *if* it could produce a higher population density than hunter gathering.

So for example imagine an abstract 5x5 grid square representing a coast and river valley and marking it as farmable lowland (F) along the coast and river valley and then forested hills (H) adjacent to both and forested mountains beyond that we get:

in the 1st stage the farmers spread along the coast and river into the nine "F" squares. Then in the 2nd stage a pastoral package is developed and spreads into the adjacent "H" squares leaving the "M" squares solely for hunter-gathering.

"In the context of early farmers (IE or otherwise) moving into terriotory inhabited by hunter-gatherers i don't think either of those two models are neccessy or the most likely for the simple reason early farmers couldn't farm everywhere.

"I think it's easier to imagine the farmers moving along rivers or coasts hopping from one good farming site to the next until they reached a climatic limit for their current package."

Grey, I had in mind a later, IE migration that settled on top of a non-IE population that already farmed. The farmers farmed the animals and the aristocratic IE ruled the farmers. I used the term "herrenvolk" not as distinct from "aristocracy" but to interpret what seems to be a ruling-race: i) the same IE ruler component ii) across Europe iii) for thousands of years. I proposed an IE ruler-race to explain why IE consistently replaced other languages: linguistic dominance may be associated with military, political and cultural dominance. The Bronze Age archaeology may imply that the IE rulers had a military advantage that would have allowed them to subjugate the pre-IE. Later examples may be medieval England and France where the local languages were replaced due to the invasion of Germanics who dominated the countries not only linguistically but also militarily, politically and culturally. England then went under the Norman conquerors who also heavily impacted the language and the culture. Ireland may represent another example of language replacement under the political dominance of Britain.

Btw I dont think that the ruling-race (herrenvolk) concept has to be distinct in practice from the ruling class concept because the aristocracy of Europe tended to intermarry across national boundaries, which over centuries implies the consolidation or formation of a distinct ruling-race. European aristocracy also somewhat shared a distinct culture if not necessarily the particular IE language (although Latin did function as a sort of common west European language of the learned in the Middle Ages.) So, arguably aristocracy tends toward volkish aspects. The volkish aspects of aristocracy seem especially amplified with the hypothesised IE caucasus component because they represent: i) the same race, ii) from the same initial geographic source, iii) with the same IE language and Bronze Age culture and iv) possibly the same political dominance over the locals.

@apostateimpressions"Grey, I had in mind a later, IE migration that settled on top of a non-IE population that already farmed."

Ah right, that would be different. I'm mostly thinking about little islands of farmers dotted along rivers and coasts within a porous sea of foragers and in that context speculating how you could combine a relief map of europe, the IE language splits and DNA strips in the most plausible way if the rules were:1) start at gobekli tepe2) go by water wherever possible

http://geology.com/world/europe.jpg

http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/fall/indeur.jpg

http://imageshack.us/f/6/medwesttoeast.png/

The neatest fit i can get going west is

1) move north to the coast1a) split to anatolia1b) eastern split, tocharian?1c) jump to thessaly

2) thessaly2a) split to greece followed by a jump to southern italy2b) thessaly up the danube- italic split into north italy followed by coastal expansion west around the med- celtic / germanic split west / east of the Rhine2c) thessaly up the west coast of black sea and around the carpathians, slavic split- baltic split to the north- iranic split onto the steppe

Dienekes:“PIE does not have a word for wagon. It has a word for some of its parts, which had other uses before the wagon was invented.”

But the words for a wheel are already testimonial enough: they cannot be older than the invention of a wheel. Even Anatolian and Tocharian share the word IE *hurgi ‘wheel’. So it is impossible that even Early PIE could have split very early, as the Anatolian homeland theory suggests.

Dienekes:“The finding of East Eurasian mtDNA in the Ukraine and Hungary doesn't bode well for that region being a substantial source of population movements. It looks more like a region that had its population replaced.”

1. That East Eurasian mtDNA can have been there for a long time, its carriers both genetically and linguistically Europeanized. 2. Language spread does not require massive migration.

"I think it's easier to imagine the farmers moving along rivers or coasts hopping from one good farming site to the next until they reached a climatic limit for their current package."

Grey,That is indeed what happened in much of Central and Northern Europe (rivers). The sites are on the best (Loess) soils, and spread thinly along the tributaries - with only a very few jumps where necessary (e.g., north of the Danube, there are few East-West rivers in Germany).

As to horses and carts: that vocabulary is ~3,000 - 4,000 years younger than IE itself. Also, horses played no role at all west of the Hungarian plains (i) because they are difficult and expensive to keep, and (ii) the terrain and climate wasn't suited to them. First horse ownership is by Celt elites in the very late bronze age/ early iron age, and even later (with Roman introduction) north of there.

Carts were drawn by ox, instead. And vocabulary of technology - through the ages - easily spreads though unrelated languages.

But the words for a wheel are already testimonial enough: they cannot be older than the invention of a wheel. Even Anatolian and Tocharian share the word IE *hurgi ‘wheel’. So it is impossible that even Early PIE could have split very early, as the Anatolian homeland theory suggests.

There is no reason to think that the PIE words for wheel refer to the wheels used for transportation specifically.

And, as a matter of fact, there is no word for wheel in PIE:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=999

"So though the Hittite and Tocharian words are probably derived from the same PIE root, it seems clear that they were derived independently—and that obviously offers no support at all for a PIE word for ‘wheel’."

1. That East Eurasian mtDNA can have been there for a long time, its carriers both genetically and linguistically Europeanized. 2. Language spread does not require massive migration.

What you are saying is that there _was_ substantial genetic inflow into steppe to reduce the East Eurasian mtDNA to trace levels, and there _was not_ substantial genetic outflow from the steppe to spread the same East Eurasian mtDNA around.

That doesn't seem like a strong argument for your theory. It seems to agree more with mine, that the steppe was Indo-Europeanized, rather than that it did the Indo-Europeanizing.

Looking again at a simple path of least resistance model and trying to relate geography

http://geology.com/world/europe.jpg

and IE language splits

http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/fall/indeur.jpg

and following the simple rules:1) start at gobekli2) expand in all viable directions3) follow water4) avoid mountains

what strikes me is simply looking at the geography there should be another split from the Pontic coast.

If the sequence was1) gobekli to pontic coast2a) pontic coast to anatolia2b) pontic coast to thessaly2c) pontic coast to transcaucasus then east (Tocharian?)

there should (simply for geographical reasons) also be a 2d) along the east side of the black sea to the pontic steppe. The obvious candidate for this would be the Iranic split except the language tree seems to say not.

Eurologist:“Carts were drawn by ox, instead. And vocabulary of technology - through the ages - easily spreads though unrelated languages.”

Those IE wheel- and wagon-related words have REGULAR sound correspondences. That means that they cannot have been spread from one language to another thousands of years after the Proto-Indo-European stage. They must be inherited from PIE. That means: PIE cannot be older than the inventing of the wheel.

Dienekes:“There is no reason to think that the PIE words for wheel refer to the wheels used for transportation specifically.”

Oh, really? Other kinds of wheels are not significantly older, either.

Dienekes:“And, as a matter of fact, there is no word for wheel in PIE:http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=999"So though the Hittite and Tocharian words are probably derived from the same PIE root, it seems clear that they were derived independently—and that obviously offers no support at all for a PIE word for ‘wheel’." “

Interesting, but your source states also:“In the current state of our knowledge, the most we can say is that the common ancestor of the non-Anatolian branches had a word for wheel (which of course could have been invented not long before the pre-Tocharians took off for the Altai).”

So, Late Proto-Indo-European (Anatolian already split off) still must be a young stage of language. Anatolian could not have split off thousands of years earlier, as it can be phonologically derived from quite a Late PIE-like system.

Dienekes:“What you are saying is that there _was_ substantial genetic inflow into steppe to reduce the East Eurasian mtDNA to trace levels, and there _was not_ substantial genetic outflow from the steppe to spread the same East Eurasian mtDNA around.That doesn't seem like a strong argument for your theory. It seems to agree more with mine, that the steppe was Indo-Europeanized, rather than that it did the Indo-Europeanizing.”

Try to remember that a language spread does not require a mass migration. Therefore gene flow cannot prove nor disprove expansion of a language. Genetic results cannot disprove the linguistic results. It is enough if we find just a single genetic lineage spreading from the steppe at the right time – all the other lineages may well have spread from other directions at other times, yet they are irrelevant.

Oh, really? Other kinds of wheels are not significantly older, either.

Round, cyclical and rolling things abound in nature. There is absolutely no sound reason to think that the PIE word for "wheel" referred originally to a human device.

Try to remember that a language spread does not require a mass migration. Therefore gene flow cannot prove nor disprove expansion of a language. Genetic results cannot disprove the linguistic results. It is enough if we find just a single genetic lineage spreading from the steppe at the right time – all the other lineages may well have spread from other directions at other times, yet they are irrelevant.

Thanks for the reminder, but a spread that does not involve a mass migration requires a different reason to justify why it became established over a wide area in the first place. There is simply no evidence in the archaeological record of steppe influence in Iran, India, Anatolia, or most of Europe.

And, remember, that we _do_ have to invoke a substantial migration to account for changes since the early Neolithic in Europe. So, when we have strong indications of mass migration into Europe since the early Neolithic, there is an obvious candidate for the agents of Indo-Europeanization: the bearers of all those haplogroups that haven't turned up yet in an early Neolithic context.

Dienekes:“Round, cyclical and rolling things abound in nature. There is absolutely no sound reason to think that the PIE word for "wheel" referred originally to a human device.”

Then how is it possible that two words for ‘wheel’ (*kwekwlos and *hurgi) are derived from words for ‘to turn around’ and have a meaning ‘wheel’ attested in different branches? They are not derived from a word for ‘round object’, so your excuses are not valid.

Dienekes:Thanks for the reminder, but a spread that does not involve a mass migration requires a different reason to justify why it became established over a wide area in the first place. There is simply no evidence in the archaeological record of steppe influence in Iran, India, Anatolia, or most of Europe.

Not a single homeland theory can directly explain all the later IE areas archaeologically. This is because the expansion of a language proceeded in many steps. To South Asia the expansion did happen through Bactria-Margiana, to Anatolia through Bulgaria, To West Europe through Corded Ware Culture (which actually had a clear steppe influence).

Dienekes:And, remember, that we _do_ have to invoke a substantial migration to account for changes since the early Neolithic in Europe. So, when we have strong indications of mass migration into Europe since the early Neolithic, there is an obvious candidate for the agents of Indo-Europeanization: the bearers of all those haplogroups that haven't turned up yet in an early Neolithic context.

You have no basis to connect the IE language on these. Take haplogroups as haplogroups. You just cannot think that the greatest migration must have been the IE one – why should it be? There may have been many other linguistic expansions to Europe before the IE expansion, it surely was not the first one.

It seems that you have forgotten all the lost languages and see only the IE language which happened to survive.

(The comments underneath contain an interesting point that the quarries where the stones were cut wouldn't likely have hundreds of men hanging round just to move huge blocks of stone short distances around the quarry so maybe they'd have a very simple.)

combine that with

Link to a video of a guy in Michigan moving large blocks on his own using pivot stones (c. 1 minute in)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pCvx5gSnfW4

combined with

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/scotlandballs.htm

"The six projections, and roughened surface of this Greenstone ball are typical of the majority of carved stone balls. Almost half of all known carved balls have six projections and most were not finished to the high standard of the 'Towie' ball"

The six projections would be an easy way of getting close to a round shape. Something like that could be used as a pivot stone.

Thanks for the links. The link to megalithic monuments is quite interesting, because it is indeed the case that heavy stone blocks simply cannot be transported without some kind of rolling device: dragging is not an option.

Even the wheel itself is probably older than its first appearance in figurative art. If you think about how many pieces of prehistoric tech can be found in prehistoric art, a great part of the toolkit is simply missing.

Wheels of some sort also played an important role in toys, long before the technology came into wide practical application. A good example of this is paper planes, that were used as toys long before man discovered how to use flight for practical purposes, or the even more sophisticated rockets and "powered birds" of the ancient Chinese and Greeks. All of the above existed long before the invention of aeroplanes.

It is quite likely that mankind had rolling round objects for either practical or entertainment purposes, and the notion that "wheel" can only have originally described the wheels of a vehicle is little more than speculation.

You just cannot think that the greatest migration must have been the IE one – why should it be?

The burden of proof is on those who think that a minor migration brought Indo-European languages to Europe to identify that migration and to show why a minor migration would replace European languages, whereas a major one didn't.

Those who imagine minor migrations from the steppes as changing the linguistic landscape of Europe have a difficult task, because in all recorded history there have been repeated invasions of Europe (and China, Iran, and India) from the direction of the steppe, most of them by highly organized horse cavalry societies that could mobilize thousands of warriors and the logistic support for them. Nonetheless, none of these sophisticated invasions could effect linguistic change in anything but a tiny portion of the densely populated agricultural zones.

Dienekes:“The burden of proof is on those who think that a minor migration brought Indo-European languages to Europe to identify that migration and to show why a minor migration would replace European languages, whereas a major one didn't.”

I didn’t say that – of course the large migration can also have been spread a new language. It was just prior to the spread of IE, and therefore the later minor migration which also spread a language (in this case IE) has wiped out the earlier language of the major Neolithic migration.

And it is also possible that a language of the major migration did not succeed to spread it language while a minor migration did – it is a sociolinguistic matter if people shift their language or not, it is NOT purely a matter of number of speakers only.

I’m just telling you that there is absolutely no basis to connect the spread of IE language to a great migration only because it was a great migration! There are plenty of possible options, and we must choose the one fitting to the LINGUISTIC results. And these results tell us that the dispersal of PIE was a Bronze Age phenomenon, not a Neolithic one.

Dienekes:“Those who imagine minor migrations from the steppes as changing the linguistic landscape of Europe have a difficult task, because in all recorded history there have been repeated invasions of Europe (and China, Iran, and India) from the direction of the steppe, most of them by highly organized horse cavalry societies that could mobilize thousands of warriors and the logistic support for them. Nonetheless, none of these sophisticated invasions could effect linguistic change in anything but a tiny portion of the densely populated agricultural zones.”

None? Remember the cases like Turkish and Hungarian. A minor migration is enough.

Turkish and Hungarian affected a very minor portion of the agricultural zone, despite being large organized military confederations.

Those who think that Chalcolithic peoples from the steppes achieved a task that was a couple of orders of magnitude greater (Indo-Europeanizing Europe, India, and Iran) have their work cut out for them.

I didn’t say that – of course the large migration can also have been spread a new language. It was just prior to the spread of IE, and therefore the later minor migration which also spread a language (in this case IE) has wiped out the earlier language of the major Neolithic migration.

No, the early Neolithic migration apparently did not bring most of the existing Y-haplogroups into Europe. That goes down to 5,000 years ago (Treilles and Oetzi). So, there must have been at least one major migration episode into Europe to account for the fact that G2a is no longer the dominant haplogroup there.

In short: the model of Paleolithic+Neolithic+minor Steppe IE does not fit the evidence.

Dionekes"The link to megalithic monuments is quite interesting, because it is indeed the case that heavy stone blocks simply cannot be transported without some kind of rolling device: dragging is not an option."

Yes, the clip at the top of this page shows the second technique better.

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1

You could even imagine most of the crew who were moving the stone standing on top where the counter-weight is and acting as the counter-weight themselves.

So five guys stand on top acting as the counter-weight while one guy spins it around the first pivot stone moving the block a few feet in the right direction. The counter-weight crew move a little more to the left so the stone tips up and the pusher can place another pivot stone a few feet to the right of the first one. The counter-weight crew then walk to the right edge until the block is balanced on the second pivot stone and the pusher spins it again: six men, three feet per spin, five spins per minute, one mile in six hours, two miles a day on flat terrain.

Not so great uphill obviously but pivot stones could definitely be a candidate for "derived from words for ‘to turn around’".

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.